Arkansas Supreme Court affirms dismissal of Taurin Johnson’s habeas petition challenging FSMA application

The Arkansas Supreme Court on Sept. 19, 2024, affirmed the Lincoln County Circuit Court’s denial and dismissal of Taurin A. Johnson’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging treatment of his life sentence under the Fair Sentencing of Minors Act (FSMA).

Johnson, who pleaded guilty in 1994 to first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder for crimes committed Jan. 21, 1993, argued that his life-without-parole judgment was illegally amended to life with parole under the FSMA and that he was not given a resentencing hearing. He also argued the FSMA’s retroactive application would violate the Constitution’s prohibition on ex post facto laws. Johnson was 17 at the time of the offenses; he was sentenced to life without parole on the murder conviction and a concurrent 360-month term for attempted murder.

The court, in an opinion by Justice Barbara W. Webb, affirmed because Johnson did not present sufficient evidence that the original judgment and commitment order had been amended or that he was otherwise being illegally detained. The opinion reaffirmed prior rulings limiting habeas review to whether a petitioner is in custody pursuant to a valid judgment or whether the convicting court lacked jurisdiction, noting that parole-eligibility issues are not cognizable in habeas proceedings. The court cited Proctor v. Payne, 2020 Ark. 142, and Hobbs v. Gordon, 2014 Ark. 225, among authorities.

The opinion also addressed Johnson’s ex post facto argument by explaining that the FSMA (Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-621 (Supp. 2017)) contains parole-eligibility provisions that the General Assembly intended to apply retroactively to juveniles convicted of first-degree murder before March 2017. The court cited Ark. Parole Bd. v. Johnson, 2022 Ark. 209, and Bosnick v. Lockhart, 283 Ark. 206, in concluding that because the FSMA’s parole provisions are more favorable to a juvenile offender than prior law, their retroactive application does not constitute an unconstitutional ex post facto law.

The opinion notes Johnson previously filed a habeas petition in 2018 raising Miller v. Alabama (567 U.S. 460 (2012)) claims; that petition was denied and the denial affirmed because Johnson’s life sentence was not mandatorily imposed, and Miller therefore did not require vacatur or resentencing.

Because the appellate court found the petition lacking in evidentiary support for its principal factual claim (that the judgment was amended without a resentencing), it affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal. The court’s mandate leaves in place Johnson’s conviction and sentence subject to applicable parole rules and procedures under Arkansas law.

Justice Webb delivered the opinion for the court. Taurin Johnson appeared pro se; the appellee was represented by Tim Griffin, Arkansas Attorney General, by Joseph Karl Luebke, assistant attorney general.